Ballots to remain uncounted in MI and Stein blocked in Philly. Guest: Election integrity, law expert Paul Lehto says this proves 'only option is to get it right on Election Night'. Also: Trump taps climate denier, fossil-fuel tool for EPA...

Shepard Smith's days at Fox "News" may have to be numbered at this point. Even the filthy Judith Miller, for Chrissakes, is joining him in being appalled by the torture memos.

"If there was torture, there was a crime. If there was a crime, there were criminals who ordered the torture," he says to the reprehensible apologist Clifford May before he and Miller both concur that these "horrendous techniques are illegal"...

But later, Smith completely blows his stack on Fox's online-only show The Strategy Room, pounding on the table and SHOUTING: "We are America! I don't give a rat's ass if it helps! We are America! We do not fucking torture!!!":

Torture is not constitutional, it's against US and international law. You can be prosecuted for it in many countries. What's wrong with this picture then of Fox Network practically advocating for it? I'm not altogether sure that this would not warrant some form of research into the laws involved in promoting illegal behavior.

During and after the wars in the Balkans a number of people looked at the crimes committed by members of the press who advocated for different sides in hostilities resulting in genocide. --If a member of the press fosters a climate where crimes are being cultivated...is he breaking laws? Should he/she be prosecuted?

Fox is definitely a propaganda machine for folks on the right in the Republican and Libertarian parties. Just check out the story we just did on the Tax Day Tea Party 'movement' that was made to appear (badly) like they were grass roots.

FOX promoted the events, so it's clear they have a stake in them. They can't pretend to be simply covering just another story, but that's what they tried to get away with.

Media Matters sorted it all out on their web site, mediamatters.org.

FOX also must have a political stake in justifying torture, so they put one nut case after another on the air to do that.

Clifford May mentions how doctors and psychologists were standing by to 'make sure' people are 'not tortured' is of particular interest. A group of scholars in the field of medicine and psychology stood up to their own membership organization, the American Psychological Association, to argue that by their very presence at these events such professionals in the medical field were violating their oaths and also committing crimes just as significant as the crimes of those carrying out the torture.

More than that though, the medical professionals helped write some of the plans for the torture, noting what types of things work best, mapping out a strategy for as May says, 'scaring' people.

Actually some of their tactics were powerful enough to destroy a detainee's personality altogether. So it's a form of actual murder since they won't ever be the same person again.

Media Matter doesn't sort anything out. They pick out sentences from conservatives that they twist out of context and play ad nauseum through MSNBC, the Democratic Party, and every other media institution that it is going out of business.

But if you believe that America should not be allowed to protect itself, including by use of interrogation to obtain information, then that is your choice, and your are free to believe that.

And my belief is that if I were ever in a situation where I had to choose between saving your life and that of a cockroach, I'd save the cockroach, because the cockroach gives more to society than you do.

Dori Smith, destroying someone's personality through torture is a heinous crime, but "murder" is a clearly defined term with a specific meaning, and you cannot make it mean anything you please. If their body is still alive, they weren't murdered.

Also, what makes you say that "FOX also must have a political stake in justifying torture"? FOX tends to be pro-war, "tough on crime," and absurdly deferential to authority, especially loud and violent white male authority figures, and all that pushed them into being torture apologists as a group. But arguably they took those positions just to pander to the views their chosen audience already holds, not out of any genuine corporate interest.

They're also very Republican, and defending torture now means defending Republicans, but they were advocating torture back before anyone in either party was known to have done it.

And as much as I disagree with torture, I don't want to start prosecuting journalists for their political opinions, which is a very slippery slope. There's a real risk of a chilling effect on all sorts of free speech there.

Jamie Q, you've sidestepped the question at hand, which is whether the interrogations should include torture. I also want you to know that if your life was at risk, or you were unjustly imprisoned, or you were in prison and at risk of being tortured, or someone was trying to silence your political or other opinions, including your opinion that torture is justified, I would fight for your rights as a human being to life, to liberty, to freedom from torture, and to free speech.

As for Shepard Smith, he'd get a lot more traction if he moderated his delivery a little, but frankly I think he's right, his message is overdue, and his outrage is justified.

"But if you believe that America should not be allowed to protect itself, including by use of interrogation to obtain information, then that is your choice, and your are free to believe that."

Except, we're not talking "interrogation", we're talking torture. If you can't be honest with yourself, then that cockroach you speak of surely is a better person than you, since cockroaches at least don't have to lie to try and twist reality to fit their world view.

And it's been shown over and over and over again that torture _does not work_. The CIA is trying to say "we got good intel from torture", but over the past few years, people who did the torture and followup on intel have said nothing substantial has come from it, and in fact, they got a lot of false information.

The last 9 words of your main post seems to be pure projection.. It's people like you that make them want to attack us. So, not only do cockroaches do more for society, at least they aren't directly contributing to the destruction of humanity by their willful ignorance.

-------

To the article's point, I'm pretty sure Smith is not trying to advocate torture, I got the impression from a quote (not presented here in text) from him ("if we torture then I want out!", or something to that effect) that he's still believing the lies that we "did not torture".. but if a commission finds that we 'did', he would be disgusted with the country (more, it's leadership supported by moron sheeple) and want to "leave it".

The only sad thing in all of this is, this poor sap doesn't already know full well that "we tortured".

The right-wing sure fucked everything up. Orwell would be proud (well, the leaders in his book "1984" would be).

"Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy.
They would be wrong.
While we are warriors, we are also human beings.
Gen Petraus, U.S. Army.
Cmndr, Multinational Forces, Iraq. 2007http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmjEH0-sqv8

Waterboarding is a euphemism. The traditional name for it is actually "the drowning torture".
It's been used by the Spanish Inquisition and the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge and the Communist Chinese etc.

As Jon Stewart pointed out last night, we executed the Japanese that used waterboarding on our soldiers during WWII. How can we say "if you do that to us, we will execute you for crimes, but we can do it all we want"?

Technically, the constitution doesn't cover torture at all. Sure, there's the clause about cruel and unusual punishment, and certainly torture would be included in that (although under bush one could consider torture 'usual').

However, the constitution's jurisdiction only includes US citizens, possibly extending to people on US soil (which is why Guantanamo was used, its technically not US soil although some legal arguments can be made that it's close enough to being US soil that the same rules still apply).

Therefore if we're torturing foreigners then its not unconstitutional (it is still unethical, internationally illegal, and violates geneva conventions, etc). If people died from the torture (and they did in Afghanistan), then its murder which is illegal under every US state, except in states that allow the death penalty --- but those cases at least were seen through a public court. If they tortured Padilla, then it's unconstitutional.

Shep is about the only guy on Fox I can actually watch without throwing up in my mouth. Of course he only bucks the trend about once every 2-3 years like he apparently did here.

Tell me though, honestly, wouldn't you love to have Rove strapped to a board with a few thousand buckets of water and a towel? Whatever happens in Vegas....

The constitution says "all Treaties made, or which shall be made ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land;". The Geneva Conventions is one of the treaties we made. Therefore our breaking of the Geneva Conventions is unconstitutional.

"However, the constitution's jurisdiction only includes US citizens, possibly extending to people on US soil "

I disagree with this assessment. The Constitution does not say "All Americans are created equal", it says "All men are create equal", which means we believe these rights Americans enjoy to belong to _all people_. Therefore, when any people are in our custody, we have an obligation to treat them as we claim "all men" should be treated. Period.

Playing word games doesn't get anyone out of this mess; only people looking for excuses buy into that. Don't be one of those people.

Correction, the Declaration of Independence states such; Given it's connections and connotations with the founding of this country, and an expression of what we deem(ed) sane, the underlying premise should hold to all activities we engage in as a nation.

The Declaration of Independence should be incorporated into the Constitution, for sure. Plus, I think we should strip of their citizenship and deport all those who think the wealthy are entitled to more rights and benefits than the poor. Let them find or form a country whose founding documents state otherwise, state it's self-evident to them that oligarchy is the best government. And, if we need to make it clearer to everyone that Constitutional protections extend to anyone in our custody or control, no matter where, then we should get on that right away. I don't think that should be necessary. It's clear enough that our country is not merely embodied in its borders, but also in its people. You know, "We The People" and all that.

Somebody tell Holder that his job is not to do what Obama tells him to do. His job is to prosecute criminals. He's breaking the law and his oath by not prosecuting everyone involved in torturing people. Holder, so far, has not been a scrap better than any of the * administration's AGs. All of them were outrages to the rule of law. And that's just it, either he prosecutes per the law instead of per the president, or we are not a rule of law nation but a monarchy.

I disagree with this assessment. The Constitution does not say "All Americans are created equal",

it says "All men are create equal", which means we believe these rights Americans enjoy to belong to _all people_. Therefore, when any people are in our custody, we have an obligation to treat them as we claim "all men" should be treated. Period.

Personally I agree with you, but the supreme court has a history of only applying the constitution to citizens, or sometimes to non-citizens on US soil.

The constitution says "all Treaties made, or which shall be made ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land;". The Geneva Conventions is one of the treaties we made. Therefore our breaking of the Geneva Conventions is unconstitutional.

I see your point, however torture itself is against the Genevea convention specifically, making torture an illegal activity because it breaks a law. All that article of the constitution is saying is that treaties are 'laws'. If we were to withdraw from the Geneva conventions, then torture of non-US citizens on foreign soil wouldn't specifically be 'unconstitutional'.

Anyway, its just a minor nit-pick I had from one of the early posts. I'm in clear agreement that torturing prisoners is one of the more f*cked up things our country has done, roughly on par with supporting ruthless dictators just because they take an 'anti-communist' view. Clearly, at a minimum DoJ personnel should be tried on that issue, as well as persons higher-up the chain (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, etc).

I somewhat think Obama doesn't want to prosecute people in the CIA directly (and noone more generally) because think about what happened to Kennedy when he rocked the boat too much in too many areas...

Agent99 said, "I think we should strip of their citizenship and deport all those who think the wealthy are entitled to more rights and benefits than the poor"

I think better would be strip the following rights from the people who torture

1. dhs homeland security access/network/contracting
2. put them ON the no-fly list
3 all U.S. govt. security access/networks/or contracts.
4. Right to run for office (banned for life)
5. No right to be an appointee.
6. Discharge from military, revoke security/access/networks or contracting ever in the future.
7. No right to lobby ever again.
8. jail or federal prison perhaps?
9. seize their assets.
10. any other court things by the victims should be brought against them
11. no right to be in the following, communications, media, networks, weapons, transportation, food, energy, health, state, local office.

I had tears starting down my face over this stand Smith and Miller took. My god, they only named the caterpillar thing - what about forced enemas? What about making naked fiercely hetrosexual men touch other naked men? What about letting attack dogs on tied up prisoners? What about slamming people's heads on walls? Why are only the pussy words used for what we did - why aren't we talking about the real and serious things?

I pray to goddess we get some real answers about this. There is no question that this goes to Cheney, Yee, Bush and others at the White House during this time, and others that are probably still around now.

This is probably just the tip of the iceberg, which totally scares the s*it out of me. What else is going to come to light?

1st off... the only reason you are so against this so called torture, is because you think that it only hurts Republicans. Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, Reid... ALL OF THEM NEW WHAT WAS BEING DONE, AGREED TO IT, AND ENDORSED IT! If you are TRULY against those acts, and TRULY consider them 'torture', then you should be holding all the politicians responsible! One more thing, remember Nick Burg and others who were held by our enemies? They were beheaded with dull knives with their arms behind their backs and you didn't cry at all! They must have deserved it for being American? Get off the prescription drugs and you'll think more clearly!

No Joe, you're wrong. A majority of Americans are against torture, and they are against it because it's morally wrong, it's against the law, and they have respect for the rule of law regardless of which party holds the White House.

Try to take off your partisan blinders for a sec.

Prior to George W. Bush, waterboarding was prosecuted as a war crime. What changed?

The U.S. prosecuted and convicted Japanese soldiers who waterboarded American soldiers in WWII, and Texas prosecuted law enforcement officers who waterboarded a suspect. Those are just two cases off the top of my head --- if you bother to look, you will find plenty of case law, both national and international, that clearly shows waterboarding is legally defined as torture and has been prosecuted as such, even by the United States.

Just because you don't know history doesn't mean nobody else does.

Secondly, torture is always wrong, always. No matter who does it --- regardless of whether it is perpetrated by terrorists holding hostages or whether it is done by Americans in the guise of fighting terrorists.

I'll put it very simply: If they do it, and then we do it, we are no better than they are.

And we're supposed to better than they are, remember?

Lastly, your last three sentences are just silly. Surely you and your moral relativism can come up with something better than that.